Diocese says it must end all state-funded adoption, foster services

[Kathryn]

One of my grandmother's friends owned a house that they rented out. One day, they had a policewoman come by and apply to rent it. The husband turned her down because he thought that policewomen didn't get paid as much as policemen, so she wouldn't be able to afford the place and she might end up missing rent payments.

Your story reminds me a lot of that.

Interesting epilogue: a little while later, another prospective renter came by who made a great impression with the husband. He offered her the place, and she agreed. A few months later, she was busted by the cops: she was a prostitute who had been using the house as her place of business.


That's crazy.

Frankly, you'd never get away with that here. The Ontario Human Rights Code covers all business dealings, and includes provisions like these:



A landlord still has the right to keep his or her property free of tenants who he or she dislikes... by not offering it up for rental in the first place.

I don't think it's crazy. A home owner - HOMEOWNER - has the right to determine who lives on their homestead property, directly adjacent to their house or as part of their house (and many garage apartments are actually a part of the house). In the United States, a garage apartment - a single unit - is considered part of the homestead, rather than a business. Therefore it does not fall under many rules which govern the operation of a business.

I think this is only right. A homeowner ought to be able to decide, if, say, he has three nubile teenage daughters, that he doesn't want to rent his garage apartment to a 21 year old male lifeguard.

A Muslim family ought to be able to decide they don't want to rent their garage apartment 20 feet from the house to a pentecostal fundamentalist couple who turns in Chick tracts with their rental application.

Of course apartment complexes - part of a BUSINESS - must abide by non discrimination laws.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think it's crazy. A home owner - HOMEOWNER - has the right to determine who lives on their homestead property, directly adjacent to their house or as part of their house (and many garage apartments are actually a part of the house). In the United States, a garage apartment - a single unit - is considered part of the homestead, rather than a business. Therefore it does not fall under many rules which govern the operation of a business.

Rules aside, if a person rents out their accessory apartment for profit, then it IS a business. Maybe it's a small enough business that it gets exempt from some normal rules, but this doesn't make it not a business.

And of course a person shouldn't be forced to rent their accessory apartment out to unsavory characters... but this concern is satisfied by not forcing people to rent their apartment in the first place.

I think this is only right. A homeowner ought to be able to decide, if, say, he has three nubile teenage daughters, that he doesn't want to rent his garage apartment to a 21 year old male lifeguard.

A Muslim family ought to be able to decide they don't want to rent their garage apartment 20 feet from the house to a pentecostal fundamentalist couple who turns in Chick tracts with their rental application.

So life guards and Pentecostals don't have the right to be free from discrimination?

And if the issue is proximity, then I assume you support your next-door neighbours' right of veto for your prospective tenants, right? After all, your neighbour's daughters and/or religious beliefs are just as likely to be harassed by a "wrong" tenant as yours are, right?

Of course apartment complexes - part of a BUSINESS - must abide by non discrimination laws.

A rental apartment of any size is a business. It may only be a small side business, but it's still a business.

At tax time, you do claim the upkeep and utilities for your accessory apartment as business expenses, don't you?

 

[Kathryn]

Rules aside, if a person rents out their accessory apartment for profit, then it IS a business. Maybe it's a small enough business that it gets exempt from some normal rules, but this doesn't make it not a business.

And of course a person shouldn't be forced to rent their accessory apartment out to unsavory characters... but this concern is satisfied by not forcing people to rent their apartment in the first place.


So life guards and Pentecostals don't have the right to be free from discrimination?

And if the issue is proximity, then I assume you support your next-door neighbours' right of veto for your prospective tenants, right? After all, your neighbour's daughters and/or religious beliefs are just as likely to be harassed by a "wrong" tenant as yours are, right?


A rental apartment of any size is a business. It may only be a small side business, but it's still a business.

At tax time, you do claim the upkeep and utilities for your accessory apartment as business expenses, don't you?

Penguin - what I am relaying to you is US law. It makes sense to me, and this is one of the many reasons I enjoy being a US citizen.

It makes perfect sense to me that a homeowner can choose exactly who he wants living in his home (and a homestead is a home - garage apartment and all).

Using your logic, someone who owns a home and puts out an ad for a roommate could not discriminate based on age, sex, religion, etc.

Please focus on the point that a garage apartment is part of a private HOME. We're not talking about an apartment complex. We're talking about a room on a homestead, a shared backyard, a shared driveway, etc.

US law differentiates between homestead property and a rental business. For instance, if I owned several rental properties, I could only claim the one on my homestead property as one exempt from discrimination laws which impact business property. And I could not claim a homestead exemption on any property unless I lived in it as my primary residence.

 

[ninerbuff]

Penguin - what I am relaying to you is US law. It makes sense to me, and this is one of the many reasons I enjoy being a US citizen.

It makes perfect sense to me that a homeowner can choose exactly who he wants living in his home (and a homestead is a home - garage apartment and all).

Using your logic, someone who owns a home and puts out an ad for a roommate could not discriminate based on age, sex, religion, etc.

Please focus on the point that a garage apartment is part of a private HOME. We're not talking about an apartment complex. We're talking about a room on a homestead, a shared backyard, a shared driveway, etc.

US law differentiates between homestead property and a rental business. For instance, if I owned several rental properties, I could only claim the one on my homestead property as one exempt from discrimination laws which impact business property. And I could not claim a homestead exemption on any property unless I lived in it as my primary residence.

But even homestead property rentals are bound by tenant protection laws (ie firewall protection, inspection, windows in rooms). I know it can be different state to state and I'm not familiar with Texas.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Penguin - what I am relaying to you is US law. It makes sense to me, and this is one of the many reasons I enjoy being a US citizen.

I have no doubt that what you did was legal in your jurisdiction. I just think that the law allows some rather sleazy activities.

It makes perfect sense to me that a homeowner can choose exactly who he wants living in his home (and a homestead is a home - garage apartment and all).

And it makes perfect sense to me that if a person wants the profit of a business - even a home-based business - then they should accept the social contract that goes along with this.

Using your logic, someone who owns a home and puts out an ad for a roommate could not discriminate based on age, sex, religion, etc.

Exactly! IMO, they should only be able to discriminate based on things actually relevant to the roommate/sublet arrangement, like ability to pay the rent, ability to get along with the other roommates, willingness to clean up after themselves, etc.

Please focus on the point that a garage apartment is part of a private HOME. We're not talking about an apartment complex. We're talking about a room on a homestead, a shared backyard, a shared driveway, etc.

Yes... having a home-based business can create impositions on the family in the home. Still, the choice to engage in a home-based business is one freely entered into by the homeowner/businessperson. Presumably, one would only do it if the benefits of the business outweigh the inconvenience.

US law differentiates between homestead property and a rental business. For instance, if I owned several rental properties, I could only claim the one on my homestead property as one exempt from discrimination laws which impact business property. And I could not claim a homestead exemption on any property unless I lived in it as my primary residence.

You didn't answer my question. Do you claim apartment-related expenses as business expenses?

If an activity is done with the expectation of profit, then it's a business. I seriously doubt that you rent out your apartment as a hobby without regard to whether you make money.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Since we've gone a bit off-topic, I'll try to tie everything back to the original discussion:

So life guards and Pentecostals don't have the right to be free from discrimination?

I think this is the key question in all this. A right for one person implies an obligation for everyone else: "I have the right to life" implies "you have the obligation not to kill me." "I have the right to not be discriminated against" implies "you can't discriminate against me."

And the reverse holds true: without an obligation imposed on everyone else, you don't have the related right. In the case of Catholic Charities of Rockford, if it had been allowed to continue taking government money and using it to further its religious agenda without any obligation or imposition, then everyone else's right to church-state separation would have suffered.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Speaking of "private rentals'. If one was to rent out some property, and were to contract with the government, or accept government funding , such as Section 8, one would have to follow all applicable rules regarding discrimination that the government laid down.

This relates back to the OP and the contracting and government funding Catholic Charities has with the government.

 

[kepha31]

Speaking of "private rentals'. If one was to rent out some property, and were to contract with the government, or accept government funding , such as Section 8, one would have to follow all applicable rules regarding discrimination that the government laid down.

This relates back to the OP and the contracting and government funding Catholic Charities has with the government.

Wrong. The issue is the right of Catholic Charities to define marraige as it pertains to adoption/foster care. "Same sex unions" are not marraiges. The govenment changed the definiton of marraige forcing Catholic Charities out. Now the government is stuck with channeling more of its funding towards agencies that have no morals. All this "government funding" talk makes it look as if Catholic Charities had nothing to contribute. Everyone loses, especially the kids who get inserted into an unnatural family situation. It's child abuse, which I have documented with scientific journals, and the only rebuttal that came forth was "bias" and "hateful". The real bias lies with the legislators who refused to grant exemptions to Catholic Charities, and this mess could have been avoided.

From post #175

Archbishop Donald Wuerl is a man of principle and prudence: he did not want to end the foster-care program, but he was left with no realistic option. District lawmakers could have granted the kind of religious exemptions that would have ensured a continuation of services, but instead they sought to create a Catch-22 situation for the archdiocese. Surely they knew that Archbishop Wuerl was not going to negotiate Catholic Church teachings on marriage, yet that hardly mattered to them. The real losers are the children who were served by the Catholic Church.

"Those who say that Wuerl is throwing the kids overboard are phonies. If Planned Parenthood were told that as a condition of public funding it had to refer Catholic women having second thoughts about abortion to a crisis pregnancy center, it would scream violation of church and state, refuse the money and end this program. Well, Archbishop Wuerl isn’t about to allow the state to run roughshod over Catholic doctrine, and that is why he is being forced to drop the foster-care program.
Prudent lawmakers interested in balancing church and state interests and servicing children would not seek to impose secular views on sectarian institutions. But that’s not what D.C. legislators opted to do, leaving Archbishop Wuerl with no realistic alternative."

 

[kepha31]

GAY ADOPTION ISSUE SPURS BIGOTED FUROR

On March 14, the Boston Globe ran an editorial criticizing Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney for endorsing a bill that would allow Catholic Charities to continue providing adoption services without servicing gay couples. In a related development, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom said he would not attend the installation ceremony of former San Francisco Archbishop William Levada as a cardinal because of the Vatican's opposition to gay adoptions.

We told the media that the response by the Boston Globe was "perhaps the most anti-Catholic editorial we've seen in years by any major American newspaper." The editorial lectured Romney that he is "governor, not a Catholic bishop." Worse, after citing John F. Kennedy's remarks on separation of church and state, the editorial accused Romney, a Mormon, of "accepting instructions on public policy from the pope."

Newsom, and the entire Board of Supervisors in San Francisco, previously refused to attend a Mass for Pope John Paul II that was presided over by Archbishop Levada, so it came as no surprise that Newsom would refuse to travel to Rome for Levada's installation. He did so citing as "corrosive and divisive" the Vatican's opposition to gay adoption.

"It's open season on the Catholic Church," we declared. "The bullies need to be beaten back and branded as the bigots that they are."
Catholic League: For Religious and Civil Rights

It seems to me the media has more control over public opinion than any time in history.

 

[Koldo]

Wrong. The issue is the right of Catholic Charities to define marraige as it pertains to adoption/foster care. "Same sex unions" are not marraiges. The govenment changed the definiton of marraige forcing Catholic Charities out. Now the government is stuck with channeling more of its funding towards agencies that have no morals. All this "government funding" talk makes it look as if Catholic Charities had nothing to contribute. Everyone loses, especially the kids who get inserted into anunnatural family situation. It's child abuse, which I have documented with scientific journals, and the only rebuttal that came forth was "bias" and "hateful". The real bias lies with the legislators who refused to grant exemptions to Catholic Charities, and this mess could have been avoided.

They don't have to grant exemptions.
Simple as this. Get over it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wrong. The issue is the right of Catholic Charities to define marraige as it pertains to adoption/foster care.

No, it's not. They're free to keep whatever definition of marriage they want. They just don't get government support.

"Same sex unions" are not marraiges. The govenment changed the definiton of marraige forcing Catholic Charities out.

Did this violate Catholic Charities' rights in some way?

Now the government is stuck with channeling more of its funding towards agencies that have no morals.

No... they have plenty of morals, but they just disagree with you on what is moral.

Personally, I find your position to be deeply immoral.

All this "government funding" talk makes it look as if Catholic Charities had nothing to contribute.

No, it just recognizes that this question is irrelevant when it comes to church-state separation questions. If an organization receive any money from the government, then it can't use that money to further a religious agenda.

Would you want the Orange Lodge deciding whether Catholics should be adoptive parents? If not, then if you have any empathy at all, you will understand why it's not a good thing for orphans to be meted out based on Catholic preferences, and why the government shouldn't be supporting it.

Everyone loses, especially the kids who get inserted into an unnatural family situation. It's child abuse, which I have documented with scientific journals, and the only rebuttal that came forth was "bias" and "hateful". The real bias lies with the legislators who refused to grant exemptions to Catholic Charities, and this mess could have been avoided.

You really can't see the other side's point of view at all, can you?

 

[Father Heathen]

As I pointed out earlier, marriage was originally polygamous. Since the modern church insists that it is supposed to be monogamous, doesn't that mean that they "changed the definition" of marriage? If so, what made it right for them to do so but not others? Why would someone who is not a member of a particular religion care what that religion thinks marriage should be? Their opinion is irrelevant.

And the government shouldn't give exemptions to catholic charities due to the separation of church and state. Tax payers shouldn't be forced to support irrational and superstitious bigotry.

 

[Draka]

You know, I'm sitting here thinking about how kepha has made the judgment that placing a child with gay adoptive parents is, in some warped way, child abuse. It's gotten me to wondering what else she finds is an "abusive" situation. So, just for fun kepha, let's throw this out there. Would you find adoptive placement in my home acceptable or abusive?

I'm a 35y/o homeschooling stay-at-home mother to two small children. I have a college education with private tutoring experience to both elementary age children and college students. Both myself and my husband are military veterans. Now...obviously from the words next to my avatar you can tell that I am a Pagan. Wiccan to be exact. I'm a liberal. Oh, and although my husband and I are religiously married (Handfasted to be exact) we have never gotten officially married by the state (though Iowa has common-law marriage and we are via that). I believe in teaching my children equality, respect, tolerance, science, evolution and so much more you probably disagree with. So...would adoptive or foster placement in my home be "abusive" as well? Or do you just specifically discriminate towards homosexuals?

 

[Katzpur]

It seems to me the media has more control over public opinion than any time in history.

Romney takes his orders from the Pope now, huh? Wow! That's interesting.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Now the government is stuck with channeling more of its funding towards agencies that have no morals

So basically what you are saying is, if they don't agree with you & the RCC's biased views, they have no morals?

lol you need to seriously get over yourself and come down from that high horse before it bucks you off. The only people that think Catholics have morals when it comes to these types of topics are other Catholics. And thankfully, not all Catholics are as biggoted and closed minded as you are.

Keep your religion to yourself and stop complaining when the Gov't actually makes a good decision that is contrary to Catholic dogma.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Speaking of "private rentals'. If one was to rent out some property, and were to contract with the government, or accept government funding , such as Section 8, one would have to follow all applicable rules regarding discrimination that the government laid down.

This relates back to the OP and the contracting and government funding Catholic Charities has with the government.

Wrong. The issue is the right of Catholic Charities to define marraige as it pertains to adoption/foster care.

They are free to "define" it as they please.

However, they are not free to ignore state and federal law as it pertains to adoption and foster care for as long as they contract with and/or receive funds from, the state to care for wards of the state.

It's child abuse, which I have documented with scientific journals,

Show me one reputable peer reviewed modern scientific journal that backs up this claim.

 

[Kathryn]

But even homestead property rentals are bound by tenant protection laws (ie firewall protection, inspection, windows in rooms). I know it can be different state to state and I'm not familiar with Texas.

Of course tenants are protected by state and federal laws regarding safety, eviction, etc, even on your homestead. The only laws in question are federal laws concerning discrimination on a private homestead occupied by the homestead owner and a single unit rental. In other words - the homeowner gets to choose who lives in her own backyard - or often, in her own HOUSE.

Let me remind you - a person renting a garage apartment is only one step away (sometimes literally) from an actual roommate scenario. Individuals are allowed to "discriminate" in roommate situations as well.

 

[Kathryn]

I have no doubt that what you did was legal in your jurisdiction. I just think that the law allows some rather sleazy activities.

Now it's sleazy for a homeowner to have the freedom to decide who lives on her property - for a single woman to decide she doesn't want to share her personal property with a man. For a man who was abused by a priest, who has two young boys, to decide he doesn't want a Catholic priest. For a Wiccan to decide he doesn't want to share his backyard with a fundamentalist pentacostal who turns in Chick tracts describing Wiccans as devil worshippers along with his application.

What about sex offenders? In many states, it's against the law to discriminate when it comes to housing, because they have to register, so anyone living near them could determine which sex offenders live nearby and presumably take precautions. Should a "landlord" with a garage apartment or a roommate situation be able to discriminate in this case?

And it makes perfect sense to me that if a person wants the profit of a business - even a home-based business - then they should accept the social contract that goes along with this.

The social contract in this case is that homeowners can decide who lives on their homestead.

Exactly! IMO, they should only be able to discriminate based on things actually relevant to the roommate/sublet arrangement, like ability to pay the rent, ability to get along with the other roommates, willingness to clean up after themselves, etc.

I see. This statement clarifies a lot. You don't even believe that people who advertise for a ROOMMATE actually living in their home and sharing their bathroom and kitchen should be able to screen applicants based on gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, etc. Alrighty then...

You didn't answer my question. Do you claim apartment-related expenses as business expenses?

Sorry I overlooked this question. As a matter of fact, no, I did not claim apartment-related expenses as a business expense.

If an activity is done with the expectation of profit, then it's a business. I seriously doubt that you rent out your apartment as a hobby without regard to whether you make money.

Well, I only charged the tenant $250 a month - utilities included. I wouldn't call it a hobby, but I also wouldn't call it much of a profit. It was pretty much a break even deal - considering the upkeep, utilities, increased income tax, and added personal liability. I probably cleared about $75 a month on that booming business.

But I really liked my quiet, polite law student tenant and I enjoyed not having to worry about my property when I wasn't home -which was often. He kept an eye on things for me and it was a mutually beneficial arrangement.

 

[waitasec]

Well, I only charged the tenant $250 a month - utilities included. I wouldn't call it a hobby, but I also wouldn't call it much of a profit. It was pretty much a break even deal - considering the upkeep, utilities, increased income tax, and added personal liability. I probably cleared about $75 a month on that booming business.

so what's the point?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now it's sleazy for a homeowner to have the freedom to decide who lives on her property - for a single woman to decide she doesn't want to share her personal property with a man. For a man who was abused by a priest, who has two young boys, to decide he doesn't want a Catholic priest. For a Wiccan to decide he doesn't want to share his backyard with a fundamentalist pentacostal who turns in Chick tracts describing Wiccans as devil worshippers along with his application.

You're describing discrimination based on stereotypes. Yes, I'd call that sleazy.

What about sex offenders? In many states, it's against the law to discriminate when it comes to housing, because they have to register, so anyone living near them could determine which sex offenders live nearby and presumably take precautions. Should a "landlord" with a garage apartment or a roommate situation be able to discriminate in this case?

No. If the law forbids landlords from discriminating against sex offenders in the provision of housing, then this should go just as much for a landlord with one rental unit as for a landlord with 100.

The social contract in this case is that homeowners can decide who lives on their homestead.

I meant in the sense that in providing a service that meets a societal need, there's a responsibility on the part of the person providing that service to do so fairly and equitably, IMO.

I see. This statement clarifies a lot. You don't even believe that people who advertise for a ROOMMATE actually living in their home and sharing their bathroom and kitchen should be able to screen applicants based on gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, etc. Alrighty then...

That's right. I think people should only discriminate about things actually relevant to the tenancy or the roommate relationship.

Well, I only charged the tenant $250 a month - utilities included. I wouldn't call it a hobby, but I also wouldn't call it much of a profit.

What would you call it, then? You say it's not a hobby and it's presumably not charity, it wouldn't make sense to call it "investment income", so what else could it be besides a business?